If sponsors pay for R&D and also make an advance market commitment, are they going to end up paying twice for the same research?
The R&D which is paid for by push funding — which is mainly basic science and candidate identification — is predominantly different from the commercial investment that will be stimulated by the pull incentive — such as large scale clinical trials, regulatory approval and investment in production. Both need funding. There is a case for structuring the funding mechanisms appropriately to create the best incentives: for example, for the basic science to be funded predominantly by direct funding, and for the investment in developing commercial products to be funded by the prospect of commercial returns. This is similar to the U.S. government funding scientific research through the NIH while still buying drugs for citizens through public insurance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Nonetheless, if sponsors wish to do so, they can amend the terms of the agreements under which they provide direct (“push”) funding — for example to ensure that they get money back if the directly-funded res
Related Questions
- Why do Fellowship Sponsors pay IISME in addition to paying teacher stipends? Why should I pay this extra amount instead of hiring a teacher directly?
- Why do Fellowhip Sponsors pay IISME in addition to paying teacher stipends? Why should I pay this extra amount instead of hiring a teacher directly?
- If sponsors pay for R&D and also make an advance market commitment, are they going to end up paying twice for the same research?
